Tutorial On Conventional Sliding Mode Control: November 2015

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/283547856
Tutorial on Conventional Sliding Mode Control
Data · November 2015
CITATIONS READS
0 283
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Missile Guidance and Control View project
Missile Control View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Viswanath Devan on 07 November 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

TUTORIALS ON SLIDING MODE
CONTROL
June 14, 2011

Part I
Introduction
D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 2/ 32

Introduction
I Variable structure control originated in the early 1950’s
in the Soviet Union.
I The most important property of VSC is its ability to
result in very robust or invariant control systems.
I Invariance means that the system is completely
insensitive to parametric uncertainty and external
disturbances.

Introduction
disturbances.

Introduction
disturbances.

Design
Design of variable structure control systems includes two
steps:
I Choosing a set of switching surfaces that represent
some sort of a desired motion and
I Designing a discontinuous control law that guarantees
the attractiveness of the switching surfaces and
ensures convergence to the switching surfaces.

Design
Design of variable structure control systems includes two
steps:
I Choosing a set of switching surfaces that represent
some sort of a desired motion and
I Designing a discontinuous control law that guarantees
the attractiveness of the switching surfaces and
ensures convergence to the switching surfaces.

Sliding Mode Control
Sliding mode occurs when the system trajectories are con-
fined to the switching surfaces and do not leave them for
the remainder of the motion.

Taking an example of a second order system, let us demon-
strate how to realise sliding mode control.

I Consider a system represented by
ẋ1 = x2 (1)
ẋ2 = −a1 x1 − a2 x2 + bu
I a1 and a2 and b are parameters that are not exactly

known but some knowledge about their range is known
i.e.,
ai < ai < āi
where i = 1, 2, and
0 < b < b < b̄ < 1

I Consider a system represented by
ẋ1 = x2 (1)
ẋ2 = −a1 x1 − a2 x2 + bu
I a1 and a2 and b are parameters that are not exactly

known but some knowledge about their range is known
i.e.,
ai < ai < āi
where i = 1, 2, and
0 < b < b < b̄ < 1

Our objective is to design a control ’u’ in such a way that
the response of the system represented by equation (1) is
independent of a1 , a2 and b after some time t = t1 .

Design of Sigma Line
I The sigma line is represented by the equation
I
σ = c 1 x1 + x 2 = 0 (2)
I c1 is a user chosen constant.

I
σ = c 1 x1 + x 2 = 0 (2)

I
σ = c 1 x1 + x 2 = 0 (2)

I The sigma line represented by the equation
σ = c 1 x1 + x 2 = 0 (3)
represents a straight line passing through the origin

with slope −c1 i.e.,
x2 = −c1 x1 (4)
I The line lies in the second and fourth quadrants of the

phase plane plot.
I Trajectories lying in second and fourth quadrants
generally represent stable systems.
I Read phase plane portraits of second order systems
and solving a differential equation of the form:
dx1
= mx1 (5)
dt
σ = c 1 x1 + x 2 = 0 (3)

x2 = −c1 x1 (4)

phase plane plot.
dx1
= mx1 (5)
dt
σ = c 1 x1 + x 2 = 0 (3)

x2 = −c1 x1 (4)

phase plane plot.
dx1
= mx1 (5)
dt
σ = c 1 x1 + x 2 = 0 (3)

x2 = −c1 x1 (4)

phase plane plot.
dx1
= mx1 (5)
dt
Design of Control
I The control is to be designed such that the system
trajectory is attracted to the sigma line.
I Once the trajectory intersects it, keep switching the
control to keep the trajectory on the sigma line so that
it does not leave it.
I As a result after a certain finite time, the system is
governed by the equation of the sigma line only and
not on the system equation.
I Thus the dynamics will be independent of the system
parameters since the only variable in sigma line
equations is c1 which is a user-defined constant.

Design of Control

Design of Control

Design of Control

Design of Control
One such trajectory is shown in the phase plane plot of Fig
(??).
Figure: Sliding Mode Control Phase Plot

Design of Control
I Along the curve PQ the system is affected by equation
(1). This is called the reaching phase.
I Along the line QO the system is affected by equation
(2). This is called the sliding mode (SM) phase.

Design of Control
I Along the curve PQ the system is affected by equation
(1). This is called the reaching phase.
I Along the line QO the system is affected by equation
(2). This is called the sliding mode (SM) phase.

Sliding Condition
I The control is designed in such a way that
σ σ̇ < 0 (6)
I This equation is called the sliding condition.

Sliding Condition
I The control is designed in such a way that
σ σ̇ < 0 (6)
I This equation is called the sliding condition.

Sliding Condition
The state space representation of eqn.(1) can be given by
ẋ = Ax + Bu + ∆Ax + ∆Bu (7)
which is equivalent to

ẋ1 0 1 x1 0 0 0 x1 0
= + u+ + u
ẋ2 −a1 −a2 x2 b δa1 δa2 x2 δb
(8)

Sliding Condition
The sliding surface in eqn.(2) can be represented in state
space as
σ = Sx (9)
where
S = [c1 c2 . . . cn−1 1]
Here
S = [c1 1]

Sliding Condition
Two assumptions are made here which will be explained as
we progress
I Assumption 1:
∆A = BD (10)
where D is an unknown matrix.
I Assumption 2:
∆B = BE (11)
where E is an unknown such that
|E| ≤ β, 0 ≤ β < 1
, where β is a positive constant.

Sliding Condition
Two assumptions are made here which will be explained as
we progress
I Assumption 1:
∆A = BD (10)
where D is an unknown matrix.
I Assumption 2:
∆B = BE (11)
where E is an unknown such that
|E| ≤ β, 0 ≤ β < 1
, where β is a positive constant.

Thus eqn.(7) can be represented as
ẋ = Ax + Bu + BDx + BEu (12)
Denote
e(x, u, t) = Dx + Eu (13)
and rewrite the above equation as
ẋ = Ax + Bu + Be (14)

The term e(x, u, t) is called the lumped uncertainty often
denoted as e.

Exercise
Can a classical feedback control law be designed to control
the plant in eqn.(14)?

Part II
Sliding Mode Control Law

Recap
I In tutorial-1, the basic idea of sliding mode control was
discussed.
I The uncertain plant was modeled into state space
form.
I Two assumptions were made to make the model
compact. When assumptions 1 and 2 hold good, then
matching conditions are said to be satisfied.More
about it later.

Recap
discussed.
form.
about it later.

Recap
discussed.
form.
about it later.

Modeling the Plant
The state space representation given by
ẋ = Ax + Bu + ∆Ax + ∆Bu (15)
considers uncertainties in the state matrix, A and the input

matrix, B.
What about external disturbances acting on the plant and
non-linearites present in the model?

Modeling the Plant
Let v be the external disturbance acting on the plant. The
state space representation is given by
ẋ = Ax + Bu + ∆Ax + ∆Bu + Gv (16)
In this case a third assumption is made i.e.,

Assumption 3:
G = BF (17)

Modeling the Plant
Thus the lumped uncertainty e(x, u, v, t) using all three as-
sumptions is given by
e(x, u, v, t) = Dx + Eu + Fv (18)
which will result in the state space equation of the plant to

be expressed again as
ẋ = Ax + Bu + Be (19)
Similarly, nonlinearities can also be addressed by another sim-

ilar assumption and clubbed together as lumped uncertainty.
In all these cases, if the assumptions made are to hold good,
the matching conditions have to be satisfied.

Design of Control Law
The control law is designed in such a way that the sliding
condition is satisfied for all t >> 0, i.e.,
σ σ̇ < 0 (20)

Since
σ = Sx (21)
differentiation gives
σ̇ = Sẋ (22)
Substituting for ẋ in equation for σ̇
σ̇ = S(Ax + Bu + Be) (23)

The design for u can be simplified by splitting into two com-
ponents as
u = ueq + un (24)
where ueq is the component of u which will compensate the
known terms and
un is the component which compensate the unknown terms.

Thus
σ̇ = SAx + SBueq + SBun + SBe (25)
To satisfy sliding condition, first an attempt will be made to
make the terms on the right hand side equal to zero using
those terms which are known. Thus ueq will compensate the
known terms if
SAx + SBueq = 0 (26)
or
ueq = −(SB)−1 SAx (27)

The choice of
ueq = −(SB)−1 SAx (28)
will reduce the σ̇ equation into
σ̇ = SBun + SBe (29)
where e is unknown.

Thus the sliding condition using the simplified σ̇ equation
becomes
σ σ̇ = σSBun + σSBe (30)
less than zero.

un has to be designed in such a way that σ σ̇ takes a negative
value inspite of whatever value e may take. This is possible
if the second term of right hand side of equation
σ σ̇ = σSBun + σSBe (31)
is made to take the largest possible value i.e.,
σ σ̇ = σSBun + |σSBe| (32)

Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
|zw| ≤ |z| |w| (33)
the sliding condition becomes
σ σ̇ ≤ σSBun + |σSB| |e| (34)

Size of Uncertainty
The sliding mode control can make a system invariant only
under certain conditions. One of the conditions is the size or
range of uncertainty. In other words, the lumped uncertainty
e is not totally unknown but its size is known. The condition
is expressed as another assumption.
Assumption 4
|e(x, u, v, t)| ≤ ρ(x, u, v, t) (35)
where ρ(x, u, v, t) is a positive scalar and known function

(bounding function).

Using Assumption 4, the σṡigma equation can be expressed
as
σ σ̇ ≤ σSBun + |σSB| ρ(x, u, v, t) (36)
For sliding condition to be satisfied, un has to be chosen such
that the above equation is true.

Thus, un has to be chosen such that
σSBun = −ρ(x, u, v, t)|σSB| (37)
or
|σSB|
un = −ρ(x, u, v, t) (38)
σSB

From the definition for the signum function i.e., sign(x)
un = −ρ(x, u, v, t)sign(σSB) (39)

Thus the control law can be obtained by substituting for the
components ueq and un as
u = −(SB)−1 SAx − ρ(x, u, v, t)sign(σSB) (40)

The discontinuity in the equation for u due to the signum
function leads to chattering.

Matching Condition
Matching Conditions are said to be satisfied if the uncer-
tainties, non-linearities and external disturbances lie in the
same channel as the input. Thus the input can be modified
to compensate for these uncertainties, non-linearities and
external disturbances to achieve sliding mode and hence in-
variance.

Exercise-1
Design a sliding mode control for a plant represented by the
state equations
ẋ1 = x2 (41)
ẋ2 = −a1 x1 − a2 x2 + bu
where −2 < a1 < 4 and 10 < a2 < 20, b = 2.

Exercise-2
Are matching conditions satisfied in the following plant
model:
ẋ1 = x2 + 2sint (42)

ẋ2 = −a1 x1 − a2 x2 + bu
where −2 < a1 < 4 and 10 < a2 < 20, b = 2.

Part III
Conditions for Invariance

Recap
I In tutorial-2, the sliding mode control law was derived.
I It was shown that the sliding conditions and matching
conditions must be satisfied for invariance.
I Size or range of uncertainty (bounds of uncertainty)
was required to be known for making sliding mode
control invariant.
I The control law has a discontinuity due to signum
function.

Recap
control invariant.
function.

Recap
control invariant.
function.

Recap
control invariant.
function.

Matching Conditions
I Matching Conditions are said to be satisfied if the
uncertainties, non-linearities and external disturbances
lie in the same channel as the input.
I Only then the input can be modified to compensate for
these uncertainties, non-linearities and external
disturbances to achieve sliding mode and hence
invariance.

Matching Conditions
invariance.

Matching Conditions
invariance.

Matching Conditions
Let v be the external disturbance acting on the plant. The
state space representation for the plantis given by
ẋ = Ax + Bu + Gv (43)
The sliding surface can be represented in state space as
σ = Sx (44)
where
S = [c1 c2 . . . cn−1 1]

Matching Conditions
The control is designed such that
σ̇ = 0 (45)
Differentiating the equation for sliding surface and substi-

tuting for ẋ gives
σ̇ = S(Ax + Bu + Gv) (46)

Matching Conditions
Assume that the control u can be determined in a unique
manner such that
σ̇ = 0 (47)
or
S(Ax + Bu + Gv) = 0 (48)
i.e.,
u = −(SB)−1 (SAx + SGv) (49)

Matching Conditions
Substituting this value of u in the plant dynamics equation
gives
ẋ = Ax + B(−(SB)−1 (SAx + SGv)) + Gv (50)
or
ẋ = (I − B(SB)−1 S)Ax + (I − B(SB)−1 S)Gv (51)
Thus if the system must not be affected by the external

disturbance v
(I − B(SB)−1 S)Gv = 0 (52)
must be satisfied.

Matching Conditions
In other words
B(SB)−1 S)Gv = Gv (53)
or
B(SB)−1 S)G = G (54)
Scrutiny of the above equation shows that the above equa-
tion can be satisfied by the assumption
G = BF (55)
where F is some matrix. This assumption is called matching

condition.

Matching Conditions
Thus for matching condition to be satisfied, it should be
possible to represent G by a linear combination of the input
matrix B and some known matrix F. The matching condi-
tions are found to be satisfied if
rank[G B] = rank[B] (56)

Example
Consider the plant represented by
ẋ1 = x2 + l1 x1 (57)
ẋ2 = −a1 x1 − a2 x2 + bu + / − δa1 x1 + / − δa1 x1
where l1 is unknown quantity. This can be represented as
ẋ = Ax + Bu + ∆Ax (58)
where

ẋ1 0 1 x1 0 l1 0 x1
= + u+ (59)
ẋ2 −a1 −a2 x2 b δa1 δa2 x2

Matching Conditions
The matching condition in this case is given by the assump-
tion
∆A = BD (60)
For matching condition to be satisfied,
rank[∆A B] = rank[B] (61)

l1 0 0
[∆A B] =
δa1 δa2 1
Hence rank of [∆A B] is 2. The rank of B is 1. Hence
matching conditions are not satisfied.

Matching Conditions
I Matching conditions are necessary conditions to satisfy
invariance.
I Sliding condition is sufficient condition for achieving
invariance.
I Even if sliding conditions are satisfied if matching
conditions are not satisfied then invariance is not
guaranteed.

Matching Conditions
invariance.
invariance.
guaranteed.

Matching Conditions
invariance.
invariance.
guaranteed.

Matching Conditions
invariance.
invariance.
guaranteed.

Reaching Phase
I It was shown in tutorial-1 that during reaching phase,
the trajectory is governed by the plant equation while
during sliding phase, the trajectory is governed by the
sliding equation σ = 0.
I Thus the uncertainties and external disturbances will
still act in the reaching phase till sliding mode starts.
I How can this problem of influence of uncertainties and
external disturbances in reaching phase be overcome?

Reaching Phase

Reaching Phase

Reaching Phase

Part IV
Shortcomings of Sliding Mode Control

Recap
I In tutorial-3, the conditions for invariance were
discussed.
I Matching conditions are necessary conditions whereas
sliding condition is the sufficient condition for
invariance.
I Whether a plant satisifies the matching conditions or
not can be tested before proceeding to design the
control law.
I The reaching phase is not invariant.

Recap
discussed.
invariance.
control law.

Recap
discussed.
invariance.
control law.

Recap
discussed.
invariance.
control law.

Shortcomings of SMC
I Chattering.
I Matching Conditions.
I Bounds of Uncertainty.
I Reaching Phase.

Shortcomings of SMC
I Chattering.
I Reaching Phase.

Shortcomings of SMC
I Chattering.
I Reaching Phase.

Shortcomings of SMC
I Chattering.
I Reaching Phase.

Exercise
Design a sliding mode control for a plant represented by the
state equations
ẋ1 = x2 (62)
ẋ2 = −a1 x1 − a2 x2 + Bu + Gv
where −6 < a1 < 10 and −7 < a2 < 12, B = 1, v =

0or2sintand G = 6.

Solution to Exercise
First to express in state space form:
a1 = a10 + / − δa1 (63)

a1 = 2 + / − 8
a2 = a20 + / − δa2
a2 = 3 + / − 9


ẋ1 0 1 x1 0 0 0 x1 0
= + u+ + v
ẋ2 −2 −3 x2 1 8 9 x2 6
(64)
The sliding surface is chosen as

x1
S= 4 1 (65)
x2

%SIMULATION OF BASIC SLIDING MODE CONTROL WITH
%UNCERTAINTY IN a1 a2 AND
%DISTURBANCE V=0/V=sin t
clear all;clc;
global A B S Del_A E G a1max a2max fmax vmax
A=[0 1;-2 -3];B=[0;1];C=[1 0];%NOMINAL SYSTEM MATRICES
S=[4 1];G=[0;6];
x0=[5;6];%----Initial conditions
Del_A=[0 0;8 9];%UNCERTAINTIES
a1max=18;a2max=19;fmax=12;vmax=6;%LIMITS OF UNCERTAINTIES
%simulation parameters
tstart=0;tstop=10;tstep=0.01;
sim(’smc1_sim’);
X2=-4*x1;%PLOTTING THE SIGMA LINE
plot(x1,x2,’r’,x1,X2,’b’);grid;
title(’Sliding Mode Control’)
xlabel(’State x1’);ylabel(’State x2’);
figure
plot(t,U,’k’);
title(’Sliding Mode Control’)
xlabel(’Time t’);ylabel(’Control Effort U’);
%MATLAB FUNCTION FOR BASIC SMC

%DISTURBANCE V=0/V=sin t
function output = smc1_con(u);
global A B S Del_A E G a1max a2max fmax vmax
v=u(1);%---Disturbance
x1=u(2);x2=u(3);
x=[x1;x2];
D=(inv(B’*B)*B’)*Del_A;%---Assumption 1: Del_A=B*D
F=(inv(B’*B)*B’)*G;%----Assumption 1:G=B*F
e=D*x + F*v;%---Lumped Uncertainty
SB=S*B;
SAX= S*A*x;
Ueq=-inv(SB)*SAX;
sigma=S*x;%---Sliding Surface
rho=[a1max a2max]*[abs(x1);abs(x2)] + fmax*vmax;
Un=-rho*sign(sigma*SB);
U =Ueq + Un;
xdot = A*x + B*U + B*e;
output = [xdot; U];

Figure:

The plot of control effort versus time shows chattering of
the control signal till the sliding mode converges to origin.

The plot of control effort versus time shows chattering of the
control signal due to the presence of continuous disturbance
sin t.

Exercise-1
What is pseudo-inverse?

Exercise-2
Try changing the following in the Matlab data file and see
the effect on control effort and chattering.
I Initial conditions.
I Bounds of uncertainty (a1max , a2max and fmax ).
I Amplitude of disturbance signal sin t.

Exercise-2

Exercise-2

Exercise-2

Part V
Tracking Control with SMC

Recap
I In the previous tutorials, the control law was designed
for a regulator system, i.e., the input is zero and the
control effort brings the plant to zero state irrespective
of non-zero initial conditions, external disturbances and
uncertainties.
I How do you address the problem where the control is
to be designed to track a non-zero input, say, a step
input which changes level from zero to a finite value?

Recap
I In the previous tutorials, the control law was designed
for a regulator system, i.e., the input is zero and the
control effort brings the plant to zero state irrespective
of non-zero initial conditions, external disturbances and
uncertainties.
I How do you address the problem where the control is
to be designed to track a non-zero input, say, a step
input which changes level from zero to a finite value?

Problem Statement
The control problem is to get the states x and ẋ track a
desired state history xd and ẋd respectively in the presence
of the stated uncertainty/disturbance. The plant is given by
ẋ = x (66)
ẍ = ax + bu + bd
where d is lumped uncertainty.

Design of Sliding Surface
The sliding surface is chosen as
σ = ė + C1 e (67)
where e = x − xd and ė = ẋ − ẋd .

I The sliding condition is σ σ̇ < 0.
I Once the system is on sliding surface, σ̇ = 0 and the
system is in sliding mode. From eqn.(2)
σ̇ = ë + C1 ė (68)
I Substituting for ẍ from eqn.(1) gives

ë = ax + bu + bd − ẍd . Hence
σ̇ = ax + bu + bd − ẍd + C1 ė (69)

σ̇ = ë + C1 ė (68)

σ̇ = ax + bu + bd − ẍd + C1 ė (69)

σ̇ = ë + C1 ė (68)

σ̇ = ax + bu + bd − ẍd + C1 ė (69)

σ̇ = ë + C1 ė (68)

σ̇ = ax + bu + bd − ẍd + C1 ė (69)

I Let the control be given by u = ueq + un where ueq is
the control which compensates for known components
and un is the control which compensates for unknown
or uncertain components.
known control is given as
1
ueq = (−a + ẍd − C1 ė) (70)
b
I The unknown control un can be found from the sliding

condition as
σ σ̇ < 0 (71)
σ σ̇ = σbun + σbd

1
ueq = (−a + ẍd − C1 ė) (70)
b

condition as
σ σ̇ < 0 (71)

1
ueq = (−a + ẍd − C1 ė) (70)
b

condition as
σ σ̇ < 0 (71)

1
ueq = (−a + ẍd − C1 ė) (70)
b

condition as
σ σ̇ < 0 (71)

I Let the estimate of bounds of uncertainty be ρ > 0.
I Thus un can be given as
ρσ k sgn(σ)
un = − (72)
b b
I Thus the control law is now given as

1
u= (−a + ẍ − C1 ė − ρσ − k sgn(σ)) (73)
b

ρσ k sgn(σ)
un = − (72)
b b

1
u= (−a + ẍ − C1 ė − ρσ − k sgn(σ)) (73)
b

ρσ k sgn(σ)
un = − (72)
b b

1
u= (−a + ẍ − C1 ė − ρσ − k sgn(σ)) (73)
b

Exercise
What is the significance of the term k sgn(σ)?

RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
Part XII SS2PVC

SlidgEqn
Simulation1
Roll Autopilot Design

Example 2
RollAP
ClassFB1
Roll Autopilot-2 ClassFB2

Compensator
Bode
I Consider the roll autopilot transfer function example SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
discussed by garnell [1]. The roll dynamics is given by SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
Simulation1
ṗ − lp p = lξ ξ (74)
where p is the roll rate in rad/sec, lp and lξ are

aerodynamic constants, ξ is the aileron deflection in
radians.
I Taking Laplace Transform, the transfer function
p(s) lξ
= (75)
ξ(s) s − lp

Example 2
RollAP
ClassFB1

Compensator
Bode
I Consider the roll autopilot transfer function example SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
discussed by garnell [1]. The roll dynamics is given by SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
Simulation1
ṗ − lp p = lξ ξ (74)
where p is the roll rate in rad/sec, lp and lξ are

aerodynamic constants, ξ is the aileron deflection in
radians.
I Taking Laplace Transform, the transfer function
p(s) lξ
= (75)
ξ(s) s − lp

Example 2
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
Roll Autopilot-2 SS2PVC

SlidgEqn
Simulation1
I Since the roll angle, φ is given by φ = ṗ, hence
φ(s) = sp(s). Substituting for p(s), the above transfer
function becomes
φ(s) lξ
= (76)
ξ(s) s(s − lp )

Example 3
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Roll Autopilot-2 Bode

SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
I Garnell’s book [1] includes the second order actuator SlidgEqn
Simulation1
dynamics in the roll autopilot model as the next step in
roll autopilot design.
I The second order actuator dynamics is given by
ξ(s) Ks ωns 2
= (77)
ξc (s) s2 + 2µs ωns s + ωns 2
where ωns = 180 and µs = 0.5.

Example 3
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator

SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
I Garnell’s book [1] includes the second order actuator SlidgEqn
Simulation1
dynamics in the roll autopilot model as the next step in
roll autopilot design.
I The second order actuator dynamics is given by
ξ(s) Ks ωns 2
= (77)
ξc (s) s2 + 2µs ωns s + ωns 2
where ωns = 180 and µs = 0.5.

RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
Simulation1
Figure: CLOSED LOOP ROLL AUTOPILOT DYNAMICS

INCLUDING 2 ORDER ACTUATOR[1]

Example 3
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
Roll Autopilot-2 StateSpace2
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
I It is shown in [1] that by ignoring the servo dynamics, Simulation1
the phase margin was +15 and when servo dynamics

was included, the phase margin goes negative and that
too, by a large value,> −50.
I Hence in a practical system, the servo dynamics is
going to make the closed loop system unstable when
included.

Example 3
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
I It is shown in [1] that by ignoring the servo dynamics, Simulation1
the phase margin was +15 and when servo dynamics

was included, the phase margin goes negative and that
too, by a large value,> −50.
I Hence in a practical system, the servo dynamics is
going to make the closed loop system unstable when
included.

Example 3
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
Roll Autopilot-2 SMCRollAP

StateSpace2
SS2PVC
I Using classical approach [1], the system is made stable SlidgEqn
Simulation1
by designing a phase lead-lag compensator.

I The phase lag compensator is given by the transfer
Tb s+1
function βT b s+1
and the phase lead compensator is
Tc s+1
given by the transfer function αTc s+1
.
I In [1], the values chosen are
Tb = 0.05,β = 15,Tc = 0.026 and α = 0.07.

Example 3
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode

StateSpace2
SS2PVC
Simulation1

Tb s+1
function βT b s+1
Tc s+1
.
Tb = 0.05,β = 15,Tc = 0.026 and α = 0.07.

Example 3
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode

StateSpace2
SS2PVC
Simulation1

Tb s+1
function βT b s+1
Tc s+1
.
Tb = 0.05,β = 15,Tc = 0.026 and α = 0.07.

Example 2
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
I Using classical approach [1], the system is made stable Simulation1

I Using a phase lead-lag compensator, Garnell showed
that the phase margin improves to 48.1 deg at 40.6
rad/sec and the gain margin is 11.4 db at 147 rad/sec
i.e., gain cross over frequency has improved as also the
bandwidth.

Example 2
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
I Using classical approach [1], the system is made stable Simulation1

I Using a phase lead-lag compensator, Garnell showed
that the phase margin improves to 48.1 deg at 40.6
rad/sec and the gain margin is 11.4 db at 147 rad/sec
i.e., gain cross over frequency has improved as also the
bandwidth.

RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
Simulation1
Figure: COMPENSATOR DESIGN FOR ROLL AUTOPILOT

DYNAMICS INCLUDING 2 ORDER ACTUATOR[1]

RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
Simulation1
Figure: BODE PLOTS FOR DESIGN OF STABLE ROLL

AUTOPILOT WITH 2 ORDER ACTUATOR[1]

Example 3
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SlidgEqn
Simulation1
I The above example is now used for design of a robust
sliding mode control law.
I The step-by-step procedure for designing the controller
along with Matlab simulations while addressing all
issues broughtout in previous tutorials, will be
elaborated as follows.

Example 3
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SlidgEqn
Simulation1
I The above example is now used for design of a robust
sliding mode control law.
I The step-by-step procedure for designing the controller
along with Matlab simulations while addressing all
issues broughtout in previous tutorials, will be
elaborated as follows.

I The open loop tranfer function for the air frame is
φ(s) lξ
= (78) RollAP
ξ(s) s(s − lp ) ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
I When an external disturbance d is applied, this is StateSpace2
SS2PVC
considered as another input and superposition theorem SlidgEqn

Simulation1
is applied.
I The state space representation of the above transfer
function with disturbance considered is arrived as
below:-
s2 φ(s) − lp sφ(s) = lξ ξ (79)

x1 = φ; ξ = x3
ẋ1 = x2 (80)
ẋ2 = lp x2 + lξ x3 + d (81)
φ(s) lξ
= (78) RollAP
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
SS2PVC

Simulation1
is applied.
below:-
s2 φ(s) − lp sφ(s) = lξ ξ (79)

x1 = φ; ξ = x3
ẋ1 = x2 (80)
ẋ2 = lp x2 + lξ x3 + d (81)
φ(s) lξ
= (78) RollAP
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
SS2PVC

Simulation1
is applied.
below:-
s2 φ(s) − lp sφ(s) = lξ ξ (79)

x1 = φ; ξ = x3
ẋ1 = x2 (80)
ẋ2 = lp x2 + lξ x3 + d (81)
Roll Autopilot-2
I The open loop tranfer function for the second order RollAP
ClassFB1
actuator is ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
ξ(s) Ks ωns 2 SMCRollAP
= (82) StateSpace2
ξc (s) s2 + 2µs ωns s + ωns 2 SS2PVC

SlidgEqn
Simulation1

function is arrived as below:-
s2 ξ(s) + 2µs ωns s ξ(s) + ωns 2 ξ(s) = Ks ωns 2 ξc (s) (83)

x3 = ξ; ξc = u
ẋ3 = x4 (84)
2 2
ẋ4 = −ωns x3 − 2µs ωns x4 + Ks ωns u (85)

Roll Autopilot-2
I The open loop tranfer function for the second order RollAP
ClassFB1
actuator is ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
ξ(s) Ks ωns 2 SMCRollAP
= (82) StateSpace2
ξc (s) s2 + 2µs ωns s + ωns 2 SS2PVC

SlidgEqn
Simulation1

function is arrived as below:-
s2 ξ(s) + 2µs ωns s ξ(s) + ωns 2 ξ(s) = Ks ωns 2 ξc (s) (83)

x3 = ξ; ξc = u
ẋ3 = x4 (84)
2 2
ẋ4 = −ωns x3 − 2µs ωns x4 + Ks ωns u (85)

Roll Autopilot-2
I The state space representation of the combined
dynamics in matrix form is shown as below:- RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
ẋ = Ax + Bu + d (86) Bode
SMCRollAP
  StateSpace2
0 1 0 0 SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
0 lp Simulation1
lξ 0 
where x = [φ p ξ ξc ]T , A = 
0 0
,
1 0 
2
0 0 −ωns −2µs ωns
   
0 0
 0  d
B=  0 ,d = 0
  
Ks ωns 2 0
I The output is roll angle, φ. Hence
y = Cx (87)
where C = [1 0 0 0].
Roll Autopilot-2
I The state space representation of the combined
dynamics in matrix form is shown as below:- RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
ẋ = Ax + Bu + d (86) Bode
SMCRollAP
  StateSpace2
0 1 0 0 SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
0 lp Simulation1
lξ 0 
where x = [φ p ξ ξc ]T , A = 
0 0
,
1 0 
2
0 0 −ωns −2µs ωns
   
0 0
 0  d
B=  0 ,d = 0
  
Ks ωns 2 0
y = Cx (87)
where C = [1 0 0 0].
Example 3
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
I The first step in the design of a robust sliding mode SlidgEqn
Simulation1
control law is to check whether matching conditions
are satisfied.
I At first glance itself it can be seen that matching
conditions are not met since the disturbance,d is not in
the same channel as the input, ξc (s) or u.
(Note:-d is in second row or channel while u is in
fourth row or channel)

Example 3
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
I The first step in the design of a robust sliding mode SlidgEqn
Simulation1
control law is to check whether matching conditions
are satisfied.
I At first glance itself it can be seen that matching
conditions are not met since the disturbance,d is not in
the same channel as the input, ξc (s) or u.
(Note:-d is in second row or channel while u is in
fourth row or channel)

Exercise
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
Roll Autopilot-2 Simulation1
I Show that matching conditions are not satisfied in case

of slow actuators in roll autopilot problem using
mathematical expressions.

RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
I Matching conditions can be satisfied by two methods SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
as was discussed earlier. Simulation1
I The first method is by transforming into phase variable

canonical (PVC) form.
I The second method is by using backstepping technique
[2].

RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SlidgEqn

[2].

RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SlidgEqn

[2].

RollAP
ClassFB1

Compensator
Bode
I The first method is used here. SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
I To transform the given state equations to PVC form, SlidgEqn
Simulation1
one way is to keep differentiating the output phi till
the input ξc appears explicitly in the final step.
I Another way is to expand the transfer function form
after combining the two transfer functions as shown
below and then convert the final expression to state
space form.

RollAP
ClassFB1

Compensator
Bode
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
Simulation1
space form.

RollAP
ClassFB1

Compensator
Bode
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
Simulation1
space form.

RollAP
I The open loop tranfer function for the air frame is ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
φ(s) lξ SMCRollAP
= (88) StateSpace2
ξ(s) s(s − lp ) SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
Simulation1
I When an external disturbance d is applied, this is

considered as another input and superposition theorem
is applied. Thus the airframe dynamics is
lξ 1
φ(s) = ξ(s) + d(s) (89)
s(s − lp ) s(s − lp )

RollAP
I The open loop tranfer function for the air frame is ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
φ(s) lξ SMCRollAP
= (88) StateSpace2
ξ(s) s(s − lp ) SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
Simulation1
I When an external disturbance d is applied, this is

considered as another input and superposition theorem
is applied. Thus the airframe dynamics is
lξ 1
φ(s) = ξ(s) + d(s) (89)
s(s − lp ) s(s − lp )

I The open loop tranfer function for the second order
actuator is RollAP
ClassFB1
ξ(s) Ks ωns 2 ClassFB2
= (90) Compensator
Bode
ξc (s) s2 + 2µs ωns s + ωns 2 SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
or the actuator dynamics is given as SlidgEqn
Simulation1
Ks ωns 2
ξ(s) = ξc (s) (91)
s2 + 2µs ωns s + ωns 2
I Substituting this ξ(s) equation in the equation for

airframe dynamics gives the roll autopilot dynamics as
lξ Ks ωns 2 1
φ(s) = ξ (s)+
2 c
d(s)
s(s − lp ) s2 + 2µs ωns s + ωns s(s − lp )
(92)

I The open loop tranfer function for the second order
actuator is RollAP
ClassFB1
ξ(s) Ks ωns 2 ClassFB2
= (90) Compensator
Bode
ξc (s) s2 + 2µs ωns s + ωns 2 SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
or the actuator dynamics is given as SlidgEqn
Simulation1
Ks ωns 2
ξ(s) = ξc (s) (91)
s2 + 2µs ωns s + ωns 2
I Substituting this ξ(s) equation in the equation for

airframe dynamics gives the roll autopilot dynamics as
lξ Ks ωns 2 1
φ(s) = ξ (s)+
2 c
d(s)
s(s − lp ) s2 + 2µs ωns s + ωns s(s − lp )
(92)

RollAP
ClassFB1
Compensator
Bode
Expanding the expression gives SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
[s(s − lp )(s2 + 2µs ωns s + ωns 2 )]φ(s) (93) SlidgEqn

Simulation1
2 2 2
= lξ Ks ωns ξc (s) + (s + 2µs ωns s + ωns )d(s)
Expressing the above in differential form gives

.... ...
φ (s) + 2µs ωns φ(s) + (ωns 2 − lp )φ̈(s) − 2µs ωns lp φ̇(s)(94)
−lp ωns 2 φ(s) = lξ Ks ωns 2 ξc (s) + d̈(s) + 2µs ωns ḋ(s) + ωns 2 d(s)

Roll Autopilot-2
I The state equations in PVC form for the above
equation can now be realized as RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
ξc = u (95) Bode
SMCRollAP
x1 = φ StateSpace2
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
ẋ1 = x2 Simulation1
ẋ2 = x3
ẋ3 = x4
ẋ4 = lp ωns 2 x1 + 2µs ωns lp x2
−(ωns 2 − lp ) x3 − 2µs ωns x4 + lξ Ks ωns 2 u
+d̈ + 2µs ωns ḋ + ωns 2 d
I Since d is considered a constant, the derivatives of d

are omitted.
Roll Autopilot-2
I The state equations in PVC form for the above
equation can now be realized as RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
ξc = u (95) Bode
SMCRollAP
x1 = φ StateSpace2
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
ẋ1 = x2 Simulation1
ẋ2 = x3
ẋ3 = x4
ẋ4 = lp ωns 2 x1 + 2µs ωns lp x2
−(ωns 2 − lp ) x3 − 2µs ωns x4 + lξ Ks ωns 2 u
+d̈ + 2µs ωns ḋ + ωns 2 d
I Since d is considered a constant, the derivatives of d

are omitted.
I The state space representation of the roll autopilot-2
dynamics in PVC matrix form is shown as below:-
RollAP
ẋ = Ax + Bu + Gd (96) ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
... Bode
where x = [φ φ̇ φ̈ φ]T = [x1 x2 x3 x4 ]T , SMCRollAP
 StateSpace2
0 1 0 0 SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
 0 0 1 0  Simulation1
A=  0
,
0 0 1 
l ω 2 2
2µs ωns lp −(ωns − lp ) −2µs ωns
 p ns   
0 0
 0 ,G =  0 
  
B=  0   0 
lξ Ks ωns 2 ωns 2
y = Cx (97)
where C = [1 0 0 0].
I The state space representation of the roll autopilot-2
dynamics in PVC matrix form is shown as below:-
RollAP
ẋ = Ax + Bu + Gd (96) ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
... Bode
where x = [φ φ̇ φ̈ φ]T = [x1 x2 x3 x4 ]T , SMCRollAP
 StateSpace2
0 1 0 0 SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
 0 0 1 0  Simulation1
A=  0
,
0 0 1 
l ω 2 2
2µs ωns lp −(ωns − lp ) −2µs ωns
 p ns   
0 0
 0 ,G =  0 
  
B=  0   0 
lξ Ks ωns 2 ωns 2
y = Cx (97)
where C = [1 0 0 0].
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Roll Autopilot Compensator

Bode
SMCRollAP
I The same values as in Garnell’s book [1], are StateSpace2
SS2PVC
considered when a disturbance v of 1000Nm is applied SlidgEqn
Simulation1
after 0.1 sec.

I The next step is to select a suitable sliding manifold or
surface.
I Simulations are then carried out using Matlab and
Simulink.

RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2

Bode
SMCRollAP
SS2PVC
Simulation1
after 0.1 sec.

surface.
Simulink.

RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2

Bode
SMCRollAP
SS2PVC
Simulation1
after 0.1 sec.

surface.
Simulink.

Sliding Surface RollAP
ClassFB1
I Since the plant dynamics after co-ordinate ClassFB2
Compensator
transformation gives a fourth order matrix equation, Bode
SMCRollAP
the sliding surface will be of third order. StateSpace2
SS2PVC
I Let the sliding surface be given by σ = Sx where SlidgEqn
Simulation1
S = [C1 C2 C3 C4 ] and x = [x1 x2 x3 x4 ].

I The coefficients C1 to C4 have to be selected such
that the sliding surface is stable. This can be acheived
by making the equation for σ Hurwitz stable. The
coefficients can be equated to those of the ITAE table
for a third order system which is given as
s3 + 2.15ωnr s2 + 1.75ωnr 2 s + ωnr 3 .
I Thus [C1 C2 C3 C4 ] = [ωnr 3 1.75ωnr 2 2.15ωnr 1].

ClassFB1
Compensator
SMCRollAP
SS2PVC
Simulation1
S = [C1 C2 C3 C4 ] and x = [x1 x2 x3 x4 ].

s3 + 2.15ωnr s2 + 1.75ωnr 2 s + ωnr 3 .

ClassFB1
Compensator
SMCRollAP
SS2PVC
Simulation1
S = [C1 C2 C3 C4 ] and x = [x1 x2 x3 x4 ].

s3 + 2.15ωnr s2 + 1.75ωnr 2 s + ωnr 3 .

Roll Autopilot RollAP
ClassFB1
I Simulations were carried out using Matlab and ClassFB2
Compensator
Simulink with the following values:- lp = −37.3; lξ = Bode
SMCRollAP
−13500; ωns = 180; µs = 0.5; ks = −1; ωnr = 50;. StateSpace2
SS2PVC
I Initial conditions are chosen as x0 = [10; 6; 0; 0]. For SlidgEqn
Simulation1
matching condition to be satisfied, assume

G = BF.The limits of uncertainty/disturbance is
chosen as fmax = 7e − 4; vmax = 1000;.
I The roll rate bandwidth is to be limited to 2rad/s and
the maximum desired roll rate is limited to 300deg/s.
[3]
I Chattering reduction will be attempted in the next
step.

ClassFB1
Compensator
SMCRollAP
SS2PVC
Simulation1

[3]
step.

ClassFB1
Compensator
SMCRollAP
SS2PVC
Simulation1

[3]
step.

ClassFB1
Compensator
SMCRollAP
SS2PVC
Simulation1

[3]
step.

ROLL ANGLE φ
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
Simulation1

FIRST DERIVATIVE OF φ
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
Simulation1

SECOND DERIVATIVE OF φ
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
Simulation1

THIRD DERIVATIVE OF φ
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
Simulation1

CONTROL EFFORT U
RollAP
ClassFB1
ClassFB2
Compensator
Bode
SMCRollAP
StateSpace2
SS2PVC
SlidgEqn
Simulation1

Garnell, P., Guided Weapon Control Systems, Brassey’s
Defence Publishers, London, 1980.
Phadke, S., “Compensation of Slow Actuators using
the Backstepping Technique with Application to Missile
Control,” DRDL Conference Proceedings, 1991.
Nesline, F. W. and Zarchan, P., “Why Modern
Controllers can go Unstable in Practice,” Journal of
Guidance, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1984, pp. 495–500.
View publication stats


Tutorial On Conventional Sliding Mode Control: November 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tutorial On Conventional Sliding Mode Control: November 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Tutorial on Conventional Sliding Mode Control

Data · November 2015

Missile Guidance and Control View project

Missile Control View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

June 14, 2011

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 2/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 3/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 3/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 3/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 4/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 4/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 5/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 6/ 32

I a1 and a2 and b are parameters that are not exactly

0 < b < b < b̄ < 1

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 7/ 32

I a1 and a2 and b are parameters that are not exactly

0 < b < b < b̄ < 1

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 7/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 8/ 32

I c1 is a user chosen constant.

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 9/ 32

I c1 is a user chosen constant.

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 9/ 32

I c1 is a user chosen constant.

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 9/ 32

represents a straight line passing through the origin

I The line lies in the second and fourth quadrants of the

represents a straight line passing through the origin

I The line lies in the second and fourth quadrants of the

represents a straight line passing through the origin

I The line lies in the second and fourth quadrants of the

represents a straight line passing through the origin

I The line lies in the second and fourth quadrants of the

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 11/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 11/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 11/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 11/ 32

Figure: Sliding Mode Control Phase Plot

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 12/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 13/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 13/ 32

I This equation is called the sliding condition.

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 14/ 32

I This equation is called the sliding condition.

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 14/ 32

ẋ = Ax + Bu + ∆Ax + ∆Bu (7)

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 15/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 16/ 32

, where β is a positive constant.

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 17/ 32

, where β is a positive constant.

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 17/ 32

ẋ = Ax + Bu + BDx + BEu (12)

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 18/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 19/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 20/ 32

Sliding Mode Control Law

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 21/ 32

D Viswanath Sliding Mode Control Nov 2010 22/ 32